As a hiring manager, when I see a resume which consists of a collection of one year terms, I'll take a pass, unless the candidate has a very good explanation for the short tenures (which I'll ask for). Some legitimate reasons would be working via a consulting agency (where you kept getting 1 year assignments), or maybe changing geographic locations, but there are very few.
There are a few reason why I'm going to pass on someone who is a frequent job hopper.
First off, hiring is a big pain, and I don't want to go through that effort again one year from now if I don't have to. If you've left your last few jobs after one year, odds are you are going to do it again.
Second, like you said, it takes 3 to 6 months before you begin contributing to a company, and more than that before you start becoming really valuable. If you switch jobs every year, between 1/4 and 1/2 of your "experience" isn't really valid - you aren't solving the hard problems, designing new systems or products, refining the things in place, you're just learning the basics of how that shop works. Generally speaking, if there are two candidate, one with 3 years at a single job, and one with 3 1 year jobs, everything else equal, the first one is going to be vastly more experienced. (Which doesn't mean you should stay at a place forever, after a while you need to move to increase your experience).
Finally, moving every year tells me something about the candidate. It tells me either that they are very hard to please (regarding compensation, or what kind of work they are assigned), or that maybe they aren't as talented as they seem (maybe the reason none of their the previous employers successfully retained them was that they weren't worth retaining), or maybe they have a difficult personality (same point with retention). I might not know which of these is true, but none of them make this candidate look attractive to me.
The hiring process, at any place on earth, isn't "fair": its function isn't supposed to make sure that every qualified person gets a shot. Its function is for the firm to hire qualified people with the minimum effort invested in hiring. To be successful, the process needs to do its best to eliminate "false positives" - people who pass the screening process, but are actually underskilled for the role, or whose personalities hurt the team, or who are going leave relatively quickly.
In that regard, as long the open spots are getting filled with qualified people, it doesn't matter that there are other qualified people that are being rejected - so called "false negatives" - as this doesn't affect the company at all. Is this "fair"? No, but the process doesn't care.
Once you understand this, you'll realize that if you have a work history that might might set you up as a "false negative" you'll need to work extra hard to earn an interview. This might mean trying to find a job through a network of folks who will vouch for you, or by writing a cover letter (or some other means of communication) explaining your work history in a strong enough way that you convince someone to take a chance on you. It might mean that you stay at your current job longer than you would like, just so you have a stronger history when you next look to move.